Dante Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 ...at least one prick got what they deserved today. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/07/white-house-seeks-delay-mexican-mans-execution-as-supreme-court-mulls-case/ Can Obama ever come down on the correct side of the issue on anything? He was trying to put pressure on Perry to stop it. And what the hell was Bush doing backing him up? Whats more disturbing is 4 votes on the Supreme Court voted to keep this monster alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I wouldn't be surprised if we see alot of sparring between Obama and Perry these next 16 months, if you catch my drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 7, 2011 Author Share Posted July 7, 2011 I wouldn't be surprised if we see alot of sparring between Obama and Perry these next 16 months, if you catch my drift. I bet. It really is something that the President of the United States continually sides with other countries against his own states. The guy looks more like a enemy of this country rather than a citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) I bet. It really is something that the President of the United States continually sides with other countries against his own states. The guy looks more like a enemy of this country rather than a citizen. He's siding with international law and a treaty that US signed, to which the federal government is obligated to. Compared to a state law that convicted the murderer. He's also trying to set a precedent to protect Americans abroad (especially military) from abusive local governments. Putting emotions aside, it's not a black & white legal issue. Edited July 7, 2011 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Maybe he should have invited everyone over for a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Leal, who moved to the U.S. as a toddler, contended police never told him he could seek legal assistance from the Mexican government under the treaty -- and that such assistance would have helped his defense. So, they don't want to be treated like illegal immigrants by the police... until it might help them escape American justice. The police don't have to tell you which avenues you have to pursue help in fighting charges. They are not your !@#$ing lawyers!! Rot in hell, Humberto! Let this be a warning to the scum of Mexico who treat the U.S. as their back alley to rob, rape and murder. No mercy (except from the Democrats who'll kiss your ass for your votes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) He's siding with international law and a treaty that US signed, to which the federal government is obligated to. Compared to a state law that convicted the murderer. He's also trying to set a precedent to protect Americans abroad (especially military) from abusive local governments. Putting emotions aside, it's not a black & white legal issue. So if your a visitor here or a alien you don't have to abide by the same law that our own citizens do? Also if US citizens are abroad they to should be subject to and respect their laws. If they don't like it don't go there. If they do, behave. And I would like to think that the US military can handle itself against any government out there. But how come Obama never seems to miss a chance to stick up for any other country except his own? He hates this country that's why. Edited July 8, 2011 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) He's siding with international law and a treaty that US signed, to which the federal government is obligated to. Compared to a state law that convicted the murderer. He's also trying to set a precedent to protect Americans abroad (especially military) from abusive local governments. Putting emotions aside, it's not a black & white legal issue. You should rethink what you just said because it's silly. Abusive governments by definition do not follow any international rule of law. Edited July 8, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 So if your a visitor here or a alien you don't have to abide by the same law that our own citizens do? Also if US citizens are abroad they to should be subject to and respect their laws. If they don't like it don't go there. If they do, behave. And I would like to think that the US military can handle itself against any government out there. But how come Obama never seems to miss a chance to stick up for any other country except his own? He hates this country that's why. This is not about him breaking the law. That is pretty much clear. What's in dispute is whether Texas violated a federal treaty and by extension federal law. That's what Bush & Obama had been arguing. Why do people have a hard time with non linear thoughts? You should rethink what you just said because it's silly. Abusive governments by definition do not follow any international rule of law. Actually the argument is not silly, because the execution just gave ample ammunition for foreigners to try US soldiers for crimes under international laws. So, yeah this case only relates to a scumbag murderer in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passepartout Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 At least the courts didn't listen to Obama as it proves that the justice system does work. And the President can't always get whatever he wants you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 You should rethink what you just said because it's silly. Abusive governments by definition do not follow any international rule of law. Seriously, that is your argument? You do not see the contradiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Holy !@#$. Are some of you really this dumb? What's next, you going to play the "So international law allows immigrants to rape our children" card? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Seriously, that is your argument? You do not see the contradiction? We may, or we may not. Why don't you define it for us...in detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 We may, or we may not. Why don't you define it for us...in detail. And limit your explanation strictly to smileys, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) Actually the argument is not silly, because the execution just gave ample ammunition for foreigners to try US soldiers for crimes under international laws. So, yeah this case only relates to a scumbag murderer in Texas. What court ruling/execution was stopping countries that would do such a thing from doing it prior to this decision? And limit your explanation strictly to smileys, please. Heh. The difference is: I could probably use just smileys for my explanation, and it would make sense. Booster on the other hand, well, we'll see, won't we? Booster would be required to use something other than emoticons...and that can be tough...for him. Edited July 8, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 What court ruling/execution was stopping countries that would do such a thing from doing it prior to this decision? I think you know perfectly well that court rulings don't prevent people from doing things. But since SCOTUS ruled the way that it did, it does open up the US to challenges of upholding international laws. And who knows, maybe a cavalier judge in Spain will try something novel. After all, you haven't spent any time at all on these pages arguing that a new law wouldn't cause some whacked out lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) I think you know perfectly well that court rulings don't prevent people from doing things. But since SCOTUS ruled the way that it did, it does open up the US to challenges of upholding international laws. And who knows, maybe a cavalier judge in Spain will try something novel. After all, you haven't spent any time at all on these pages arguing that a new law wouldn't cause some whacked out lawsuits. True, there may be some sort of legal douchbaggery...but, what is the net effect of this in the real world, not the abstract effect in the land of courts 1000s of miles away from the reality on the ground? I would argue: 0. Aside from making a few lawyers some talking head money....I don't see how this has any real effect. The difference between the ACLU and the North Koreans being: the ACLU is subject to our laws and doesn't kill people( yet ). Whereas, the North Koreans have been kidnapping/killing people for years, and they couldn't care less about our laws. Did the North Vietnamese base their grounds on charging our air crews as criminals on some abstract supreme court ruling? No, of course not, as with many leftists there's was an argument of convenience, not principle. Like how our leftists were against war....before they were for it. So, without a provable effect you can point to(another difference between my "make good gay marriage law, not emotional arguments" and this is: there was a clear and significant effect I could point to) I will say the same thing to you that the SCOTUS said to Obama: you have made assertions that are unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim. Edited July 8, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 What court ruling/execution was stopping countries that would do such a thing from doing it prior to this decision? Heh. The difference is: I could probably use just smileys for my explanation, and it would make sense. Booster on the other hand, well, we'll see, won't we? Booster would be required to use something other than emoticons...and that can be tough...for him. Keep losing and coming back with the same tired ****... that sounds familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Keep losing and coming back with the same tired ****... that sounds familiar. The only thing that is far past tiresome is your inability to add anything to a thread besides "I agree, sort of" or an emoticon. How are the posts above any different? Why do you even bother posting here? You contribute nothing. You aren't good at trolling, you never understand when you are being trolled. You never say anything even remotely interesting... ...yet you keep saying "Winning!". Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 True, there may be some sort of legal douchbaggery...but, what is the net effect of this in the real world, not the abstract effect in the land of courts 1000s of miles away from the reality on the ground? I would argue: 0. Aside from making a few lawyers some talking head money....I don't see how this has any real effect. The difference between the ACLU and the North Koreans being: the ACLU is subject to our laws and doesn't kill people( yet ). Whereas, the North Koreans have been kidnapping/killing people for years, and they couldn't care less about our laws. Did the North Vietnamese base their grounds on charging our air crews as criminals on some abstract supreme court ruling? No, of course not, as with many leftists there's was an argument of convenience, not principle. Like how our leftists were against war....before they were for it. So, without a provable effect you can point to(another difference between my "make good gay marriage law, not emotional arguments" and this is: there was a clear and significant effect I could point to) I will say the same thing to you that the SCOTUS said to Obama: you have made no legal case. How can anyone provide a provable effect of something that just happened a few hours ago? Tell me about the clear significant effect of the gay marriage law, as the point you've been harping on didn't involve religious institutions but affiliates of the religious institutions. For the same reasons that Catholic charities argued for exemption in the gay marriage law (fear of repercussions down the road) the feds (Obama AND Bush) argued that the states should follow international guidelines (fear of repercussions down the road). But, no the two are in no way the same argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts